Are blogs and wikis trustworthy? The real question to finding the correct answer may be - When do you trust blogs and wikis? After all - there is good reason for the saying to trust half of what you read and less of what you hear. It has become a controversy with many publishers, journalists, and librarians that represent "authoritative sources" of content to become appalled at the usage of sites like wikipedia.com and blogs over traditional researched and verified publications. Let's take a look at some of the arguments for and against: The collective voice of the masses

A good wiki can have input from a large population and therefore the collective will provide the checks and balances that a single person or small team can not AND additional information or details not easily found.

Blogs taken as a whole (blogosphere) can represent a trend in overall opinion for a particular topic.

Published media such as newspapers and television are expected to provide verifiable sources and facts for the information they publish.

Authoritative sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias are expected to have a rigorous method for verifying their content.

Reality Check: errors have been found in all media and publications. The next argument may be more significant. Facts versus opinions

Wikis can include opinions in addition to content that is considered verifiable facts.

Blogs are mostly about opinions of the individual blogger.

Published media are supposed to more clearly delineate the fact from the opinion.

Authoritative sources are to only publish content that is verified as a fact.

Reality Check: all media does have a certain degree of opinion (some much more than others). Some online published journals and news shows masquerade as impartial media. Many authoritative sources do a good job of removing opinion related content. Again quality can vary. Timeliness and Relevance:

Authoritative sources are typically unable to respond quickly to new concepts, trends, ideas, and events compared with wikis.

Published media may be faster than authoritative sources but often can not respond as quickly (think seconds and minutes) as blogs.

Reality Check: just because it is first out the door doesn't make it the best. There are probably many other faceted interesting arguments (feel free to comment on them) but these are usually listed as the major ones. My take? This is a blog after all! Blogs and wikis are great for my line of work. I am constantly researching new technologies and opinions on products, services, and upcoming trends. Where else better to go? My trust is often built upon the history of the blogger through past entries or research or even how well the blog is written. The trust of wikis will depend on the content I am looking for and how well it appears to be maintained. I look for authoritative sources and online journals when I need to back up the research with verifiable content, statistics, history, definitions, and to weed out the opinions from the facts. Realize that I do subscribe to believing half of what you read and one source alone is not enough for me at any time. An interesting related blog entry that shows some of the strong feelings: Who Do You Trust, The Wiki or The Reporter? A good article that focuses on wikis: Collaborative Conundrum: Do Wikis Have a Place in the Newsroom?